A Case for Freedom

The truth that the left does not want to hear is what the right holds to be self evident. That is: Freedom equals opportunity. Opportunity leads to innovation. Innovation leads to progress. Progress leads to prosperity.

Conversely, the less freedom, the less you will have of everything else. It is a simple premise, but it fits perfectly with human nature and it’s been time tested for many millennia.

This truism begs the question, so why does the left feel compelled to propose so many things that undercut the human spirit and will eventually lead us into failure? Is it willful ignorance or something worse, like an obsessive need for power and control?

Here are a few lessons that people seem to be forgetting in our dash towards embracing the new left (old socialism):

Any law or regulation, no matter how well intended, has the direct or indirect effect of restricting freedom. Therefore, all laws and regulations ought to be passed with great restraint and with due diligence. The litmus test – incontrovertible proof of its absolute necessity!

History is our greatest teacher. There is almost nothing new in politics and you need only look to history to predict future results of almost any sort of government endeavor.

Economic success is subject to 3 absolutes. The law of demand, the law of supply and the law of diminishing returns. These 3 things will touch everything in the economic world at some point and it is the basic foundation of capitalism.

Capitalism is by far the greatest vehicle ever invented to date on the road to prosperity.

And lastly, this gem – The most fundamental “law” of economics is people prefer more to less. Human nature makes us act in ways that attempt to gain more of what we value. Put another way, incentives fuel our desire to take the risks, overcome the obstacles and simply… do more. Entitlements via taxation and wealth shifting are not incentives.

37 Responses to A Case for Freedom

I do wonder why you’re not directing this message to President Trump, especially this part:

“Any law or regulation, no matter how well intended, has the direct or indirect effect of restricting freedom. Therefore, all laws and regulations ought to be passed with great restraint and with due diligence. The litmus test – incontrovertible proof of its absolute necessity!”

The president just declared a national emergency while all but admitting that doing so wasn’t necessary, as there is no real emergency. He did this to make it easier to restrict the freedom of people who want to come to the United States. And he did it because Congress wouldn’t give him the money that he wants. None of this fits the principles you’ve articulated above. It is antithetical to freedom and democracy. And it is entirely unnecessary—Trump has touted that illegal border crossing is down and arrests are up, so how can there be an “emergency” at the border now? It doesn’t make any sense. Same with the travel ban—there was no necessity in banning members of seven different countries from traveling here. Same for banning trans soldiers from the military. The Pentagon didn’t back up the president on either of these issues because they knew none of them were necessary. These were all restrictions on freedom passed singlehandedly by a Republican President, and they were all unnecessary and authoritarian power moves. The conservatives who are serious about freedom and small government have spoken against all of these moves. If only there were more of them.

A friend of mine sent me a wonderful piece called “Catching the Wild Pig”.
For those of you who have never heard this parable.

“A chemistry professor at a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist government.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, ‘Do you know how to catch wild pigs?’ The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. ‘You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.
You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.
Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.”

A thought to consider, “Remove one freedom per generation and soon you will have no freedom and no one would have noticed.”

Funny, there seems to be a new story of police brutality every day. But if you only listened to right-wing media, you’d think the arrest of Roger Stone and the investigation of Donald Trump’s campaign full of criminals was the height of police overreach.

This is disturbing news Peggy. I’ve got some comments and a question at the end for Chris, see below.

Democrats have taken a turn too far to left to keep this country whole, so I dislike seeing them winning anything right now. But, that’s not my most immediate concern. The greatest threat to our country is this stupid idea that embracing anyone who comes down the road just for the sake of diversity and their vote is a good thing; this is regardless of what they believe, be it Sharia law or long held prejudices that run counter to our nation’s ethos.

It’s been said by people much smarter than me that diversity unto itself is not necessarily a good thing, it’s diversity united behind a common belief that makes a country strong. In our case that would be a belief in freedom, democracy and inalienable rights.

For example, if you are a devout Muslim, then your faith says you must believe in Sharia Law as a law that is above all others because it’s God’s law! But, we know that parts of Sharia law are incompatible with our US Constitution. We have long held that a person must be able to support and defend our Constitution and country or they can’t hold office or join the military. It’s why the Nazi and Communist party members were prevented from holding office or joining the military. So there is a precedent here and it’s based on logic and not based on bigotry.

We should know by now, that Islam is both a political and a religious movement, right? And it’s a powerful movement that is spreading around the globe and causing wars and revolution. We’ve seen too many examples of otherwise moderate Muslims (US citizens) supporting ISIS or some other form of radical Islam and indirectly causing harm to America. And we’ve seen many examples of some previously unknown Muslim, some next door kind of person, suddenly going off the deep-end and killing people while shouting God is Great, only to discover later after the smoke has cleared, that they signed onto to ISIS on Facebook. That’s really troubling to me and it should be to any thinking person, in my opinion.

So, Islam is a two part movement, religious and political. There is the, “I just want to be your friend so I can convert you” and the “I want to convert you or kill you” part. But, they both share the same objective, world domination and the end of all competing religions and non-believers. I just can’t see how this global agenda will be good for America? Of course this makes me an Islamophobic in the eyes of many lefties. However, from my perspective this just makes me an honest pragmatist.

If we are to be thinkers and defenders for America, it should be mandatory (given their history) that Muslims entering either our politics or our country, swear an oath on the Koran to protect and defend this nation. That means they must renounce Sharia law and this crazy idea of world domination (meaning the death of all other religions). But, right now, with the world the way it is, with all wars, terrorism, the honor killings, the death to America rallies abroad, etc., even that oath may not be enough. Common sense says we better be real careful who we are letting in and who we are electing and then watch what they do until we know they can be trusted and have really joined the team.

Here’s my question. Maybe Chris can explain to me, how can Muslims belong to two competing political ideologies and serve the best interests of this nation?

I note that you did not answer my question above in the first comment on this post, so I am not sure why I should feel beholden to answer yours.

I also do not accept the premises of your question. There are plenty of Muslims who practice a form of Islam (including Sharia) that is perfectly compatible with American values, just as there are plenty of Christians who practice a form of Christianity that is not compatible with American values. Ask the trans people who were just kicked out of the military who is more responsible for that—people like Mike Pence, or people like Keith Ellison.

I’ll add that I have seen precisely zero calls from American Muslim politicians to bring our country’s policies closer to the tenets of conservative Islam, while I very often see calls from American Christian politicians to bring our country’s policies closer to the tenets of conservative Christianity.

But I guess instead of thinking about that, I should be scared because a woman in a headscarf serves on a school board somewhere.

Chris, you have a great way of minimizing the points you don’t agree with. I don’t recall anyone, anywhere at any time saying we should be frightened of anyone and in particular a woman on a school board wearing a hajib. By treating my counter point this way you do yourself a disservice, because you are failing to see issues from a reasonable perspectives, aside from your own.

It was a reply to Peggy, Jack, who seemed to think a list of Arabic-sounding names in political positions proved something. It does—it proves we’re becoming a more tolerant and diverse country—but I know that’s not what Peggy was trying to prove, and you know it too. She posted it because Arabic-sounding names frighten her, which is irrational. I used satire to point out that irrationality. It wasn’t subtle, so I have to think you’re pretending not to have gotten it.

But I also mixed that satire in with clearly articulated points—that Muslim politicians in this country don’t tend to call for our nation’s laws to bend to traditionalist interpretations of their holy texts, while many Christian politicians in this country do. You ignored this point because you couldn’t rebut it, then used my satirical (but fair) comment as an excuse to do so.

Really, this is like fish in a barrel for me. Step it up or I may get bored.

Chris, “… but I know that’s not what Peggy was trying to prove, and you know it too. She posted it because Arabic-sounding names frighten her, which is irrational.”

Interesting Chris, that you and Libby believe you have the talent of mind-reading. I would think after all of these years you would have developed a better understanding of who I am and what I believe. Remember years ago I said I admired Zuhdi Jasser and you responded you didn’t like him because you didn’t agree with him? (Paraphrased of course.) Hum? You don’t like a Muslim must mean you hate and fear all Muslims, if I apply your rules to yourself. Right?

If you really knew me like my family and friends do you’d hear me say often, “It is what it is.” and “Things don’t get better or worse they just get different and different is ok.” This is how I fell about the list of names I posted. If most of them are like Zuhdi Jasser I believe our country will be in good hands. But, if the majority of them are like
Keith Ellison and Ilhan Omar I believe they will take us in the wrong direction and away from the type of gov’t our Founders established for us.

Here’s another memory jog to remind you of who I am based on my life experiences that have helped develop my current beliefs. I was born and raised in the Army. I lived in two foreign countries where my dad as an NCO meant we lived on base in housing with all races and religions. I came back to the US from Germany after three and a half years with a southern accent because my best friend was a black girl from Georgia. I worked 27 years at a community college in San Jose that had a very high minority student, faculty and staff population. And we all got along great like a family would, because we cared for and respected each other. We weren’t perfect, but we were one big almost thousand employee strong and we supported each other like families do

So, what’s with you and Libby acting like what you believe is always right and if I/we don’t agree then we’re horrible, “frightened,” irrational and always WRONG. It’s really getting old Chris, so stop it. Like I said to Libs, before you call me a name again or believe you know how I think and what I believe go look in a mirror and see if you like what you see.

Theodore Roosevelt’s statement in 1907 is as important today as it was then, for our nation to survive. I would amend his statement to include the addition of flags and loyalty for terrorist groups, like ISIS with other countries.

Theodore Roosevelt 1907
“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Another great quote from another great president, we need to remind ourselves of every day.

Roanald Reagan
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Thank you Peggy, that was a wonderful find and both Presidents are 100% spo9t on. Geez, I wish Trump had the ability to talk like that! I know this is exactly what Trump means, but he’s so off the cuff. He doesn’t seem to recognize how people hang on his every word. I wish he was a better orator, because that part of his personality diminishes his good intentions and its a shame.

Me too. Trump is his own worst enemy. He shoots himself in his foot with his mouth.

I’ve learned to listen to him like I did with the non-English speaking students at the community college I worked at. Pick out the words that make sense and fill in the gaps.

I’ll take him over Obama though any day and twice on Sunday. Obama could lie with a straight face and convince millions he was telling the truth. Trump is telling the truth and millions think he’s lying. Can’t win.

I’ve learned to listen to him like I did with the non-English speaking students at the community college I worked at. Pick out the words that make sense and fill in the gaps.

This is an amazingly scary thing to say about the most powerful person in the world.

I’ll take him over Obama though any day and twice on Sunday. Obama could lie with a straight face and convince millions he was telling the truth. Trump is telling the truth and millions think he’s lying. Can’t win.

But you just said you don’t even count half of what Trump says. You just pick and choose the parts that match what you want to hear. Sure, Trump is telling the truth, if you tune out all of the things that he says that are lies.

Please note in my first comment I made no comment about the individuals or their elected positions. I simply indicated the direction this nation is headed; good, bad or unchanged.

My second comment included quotes from two presidents who spoke of the importance of becoming an American citizen in every way for our country to survive. “Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile”

Our country has always welcomed individual from all countries, if they enter legally. Race, origin of birth, and religion were not factors. No one was expected to give up their cultures and traditions. We were all expected to swear an allegiance to the country of our birth or naturalization.

So, get off of your progressive high horse and look in a mirror the next time you call someone a bigot.

Please note in my first comment I made no comment about the individuals or their elected positions. I simply indicated the direction this nation is headed; good, bad or unchanged.

But your implication was clear. “Look at all these scary foreign names.” Your problem is that you intended that message for an audience that would agree with you that those foreign names are scary, and you’re mad that another audience that does not agree picked up that same message and is criticizing you for it.

Have you considered a career in politics? You’ve got the dogwhistling down pat.

This is correct. You stated that yourself by making the post. I’m just commenting on it.

Where did you get that list anyway? … and why do you let such “sources” punch your bigot button, and get you to expose yourself like that? What ever happened to “some of my best friends are Muslims”? That sort of nonsense was much easier to take.

You know Libby, I didn’t even think to question where Peggy got the list, but now that you ask I think that’s a good question, especially as Peggy is now claiming she didn’t mean anything negative by posting it.

As you can see, this is a blatantly Islamophobic article from what is clearly a far-right site. The author has a problem not only with Muslim politicians, but even with Muslim Americans voting in high numbers. (Hm, there seem to be a lot of groups far-right Republicans don’t want to vote.) It also makes several baseless allegations about Muslim voter fraud and Muslims trying to conform America to Islam. It’s pure fearmongering.

The conservatives here want to lay down with dogs without getting fleas. They want to disseminate info from biased hate sites, accusing whole groups they dislike of the worst things, without ever being held accountable and having their bigotry pointed out.

There have been times that sane conservatives voices have had a place here, but they’ve all been driven off, because this has always been a site for the far right. I sometimes forget that I only found Post Scripts because of an article posted by that extremist, misogynistic and homophobic preacher, “Gate” aka “OneVike,” which argued that giving women the right to vote was a mistake. That’s about as far right as it gets, and I should have known then that trying to reason with the dominant voices here was a fool’s errand. The most we can do, Libby, is throw their hypocrisy in their faces.

Yeah, I read this story too. I’m wondering if this guy was real cop that came from a police academy or was he more like a Constable? Whatever his training, he sure got his come-uppins from his employers and the media has thoroughly ripped him to shreds. And that’s all fair enough, if the story was accurate. It just goes to show how one obscure figure like this person can cause all of real law enforcement PR serious damage. The media is always on the hunt for a good man bites dog story like this one.

His motives might have been good, we’ll likely never know. Like, he may have been trying to protect the little girl, but his side was never said. I’m curious what his motives were and you should be too if there is to be absolute fairness in reporting this story. But, the media only focused on reporting one side of the story because…. why? Why Chris? Get ready for it… drum roll…. IT MAKES COPS LOOK STUPID AND EVIL AND IT SELLS!!!! THATS CLOSE ENOUGH! NO NEED FOR BALANCED REPORTING. CASE CLOSED.

Did you even read the article? It said that they reached out to the officer for comment but he could not be reached. So to accuse the media of not trying to get “both sides of the story” here is just your false attempt to deflect from the actions of an officer who either lied about the law or didn’t understand what it was, in order to paint the media as the bad guy. Whether his goal was to protect the girl or not, that isn’t justified.

I don’t believe that all or even most cops are “stupid and evil,” and the article does not imply that. I do note that you don’t object when the President of the United States literally calls the media the “enemy of the people.” Your attempts to make the media the bad guys here could easily be strawmanned into you saying that reporters are “stupid and evil,” but I won’t do that, because I have standards.

Chris, yes I read it. I agreed with you in half my of my commentary…good grief what do want? I only said the cops side was never stated. Was it stated Chris? No. How did they reach out, a single phone call that rang twice? You don’t know and I don’t either so don’t be so damn snarky. The media could have gotten his story if they really wanted too, but obviously they didn’t and by the looks of it you don’t care either. Fine, but I’m just saying for there to be true balance and fairness we ought to know his side. Make of that what you will and I’m sure you will.

But you didn’t even check to see if the media did get his side of the story. You just assumed, based off of one single article, that the “media” as a whole didn’t get his story. That assumption is false.

I googled the name of the officer, and this is the first story that popped up. It’s by the Associated Press, and it quotes Patterson extensively.

Perhaps you projected your own collectivism onto the media when you said they were trying to smear cops as a whole as “stupid and evil” by covering this story. In reality, you smeared the media as a whole as biased based solely on your own unwillingness to Google. If you don’t believe a whole profession should be smeared based on a few bad actors within that profession, you shouldn’t smear a whole profession based on nothing but your own laziness and ignorance.

Chris you are pushing the limits of my tolerance with your snarky jabs. You know the story you linked too was printed long after the first story broke. Calling me lazy and ignorant is NOT endearing. And if you infuse your future comments with such ugliness you will once again find yourself on the outside looking in.